header-logo header-logo

Experts “cautiously optimistic” about litigation future post-Brexit

17 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

London is likely to retain its dominance as the forum of choice post-Brexit, despite EU lobbying that exiting the EU could mark the end for UK litigation dominance.

Speaking in a New Law Journal panel debate this week, Ed Crosse, partner at Simmons and Simmons LLP and president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said he was optimistic but not complacent about the future.

“After an initial period of alarm among clients—and lawyers—about the Brexit effect on civil justice things have settled down. Clients choose to litigate in London for many reasons such as the quality of the judiciary, the procedures, the availability of disclosure, adverse costs orders, the integrity of the courts etc, but it’s vital that we improve certainty about the future.

“We need to be taking steps to reassure clients that they will be able to resolve their disputes as they’ve decided. Clients want to be sure that if they have an exclusive jurisdiction clause they’ll be able to enforce it widely.”

Fellow panel member Hugh Mercer QC, Essex Court Chambers and Chairman of the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said it was important not to overstate how much influence Brexit would have on London as a financial centre because of the infrastructure and services, and the mass of people here who can service it. However, he emphasised that the rule of law depended on legal certainty.

“You don’t start litigation unless you’re going to be able to enforce. At the moment we have a unique situation in the world whereby we’re plugged into the EU system of enforcing judgments, the New York Convention for Arbitration and we also have reciprocal enforcement with the Commonwealth countries. Our judgments are uniquely transportable around the world and it’s important that we try to maintain that post-Brexit.”

Mercer felt that a “good agreement on jurisdiction and judgments was feasible” and was moderately optimistic that we will get one: “The Brussels Regulation in global terms is the gold standard—the status quo is the best there is and is what we should work towards.”

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP and consultant editor on New Law Journal quizzed the panel about what the litigation landscape will be like for practitioners and clients as Brexit becomes a reality. The Brexit master class, part of NLJ’s exclusive webinar series, is available to download here.

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll